20. You're projecting.

And how many examples of a gaffe of that nature comes close to Trump's illiteracy?

See, hunter, you made two requests, and you don't get to decide which one other people responded to, thats for others to decide. Normally this only has to be explained to children, but lefty types tend to need it too. I'll leave it to you and everyone else to decide what combination of those two things you are.

As everyone can see, It turns out, its you who is bad at this.

Now, as I said, you made two requests. One of them was for "And how many examples of a gaffe of that nature comes close to Trump's illiteracy?".

I listed one example. We have to count them all to compare, you see. Again, this only needs to be explained to children and lefties.

35. So if the economist prints it, it means that all non-conservatives believe it?

You guys really suck at basic logic.

Like I said... WHO, not WHAT. I know of no non-conservatives that really believe it's an 'official language'. Disparate groups and a handful of magazines might call it such, but that doesn't support the assertion that I, or most non-conservatives think it is anything but silly.

You guys just believe ridiculous bullshit about anyone you disagree with, that's why you can't be taken seriously in dialogue.

23. It was also printed here

At the end of 1996, the Oakland, Calif. school board inspired nationwide debate with its endorsement of Ebonics as a separate language. Responding to the furor, Dennis Baron clarified the role of English among African Americans — in school and out. (The research cited in this essay was first published in 1997.)
The word of the year so far is “Ebonics.” Although it’s been around since the 1970s, few people had heard of it before last Dec. 18, when the Oakland, Cal., School Board unanimously passed a resolution declaring Ebonics to be the "genetically-based" language of its African American students, not a dialect of English. In the full text of its resolution, printed in the San Francisco Chronicle (Jan. 2, 1997, p. A18), the school board called Ebonics a separate language derived from African linguistic roots, with heavy borrowings from English vocabulary. The board declared its intention to instruct “African American students in their primary language for the combined purposes of maintaining the legitimacy and richness of such language . . . and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of English language skills.” Claiming that “African-American people and their children are from home environments in which a language other than English is dominant,” the board indicated that it would also seek bilingual education funding from the federal government for the teaching of standard English. After a great deal of negative publicity, Oakland backed away from some aspects of its original resolution. Oakland now plans to follow a less controversial path, educating teachers about the language of their students, and teaching students how to translate from Ebonics to standard English.

I strongly agree with Oakland’s efforts to recognize and value the language that students bring with them to school. But I do not think that the method chosen, teaching them English as if it were a foreign language, is likely to move students from Ebonics to a more mainstream variety of English. Nor do I think that acquiring standard English will guarantee success, either in school or in the world of work.

A language is a dialect with an army and a navy
The linguist Max Weinreich once said that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy. The schoolchildren of Oakland, who are predominantly African American, do not have the kind of power that brings their speech linguistic prestige. The school board tried to do something to change the negative image of black language by calling it Ebonics and asking teachers to learn something about the speech of their students.
But the American public reacted to the school board’s declaration of linguistic independence as if to an act of secession. Black leaders and intellectuals condemned the board’s decision. They denounced black speech as slangy, non-standard, and unworthy of the classroom; they condemned as racist the separatism that would result from any recognition of black English. They warned that Ebonics would give schoolchildren a misplaced sense of pride and that students’ continued use of black English would exclude students from higher education and the corporate boardrooms of the nation.

The U.S. Department of Education immediately reaffirmed the position it took during the Reagan administration that black English was a dialect of English, not a distinct language eligible for bilingual-education funds. And a delegate to the Virginia House introduced a bill to prohibit Virginia schools from teaching Ebonics.